We used a ninja 68/45, a prophecy with 1 pod of paint in it on the gun to simulate a standard setup. Each setup was weighed before testing. One of the tests below indicates that we used a 13/3k. That was to investigate weight's effect on the kick of the gun. We didn't use a hopper on that one - just hand loaded one ball at a time. All setups chronoed to 280-300 fps. The Accellerometer was taped to the gun directly above the frame on the side of the body. On the graphs positive indicates foback into the shooter, and negative is back towards the target.

long sotry short here is 5 shots from a stock ion:

same graph, just lines instead of points:

5 shots from a karni:

protege:

13/3 and no loader protege:

more data to come on grip's effect on kick. i have not have time to format that data yet.

MORE HIGH END GUNS:

Edited by cockerpunk, 07 October 2011 - 01:50 PM.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

Ion kicks forward because that is the way the bolt is going by design.

I've volunteered my G6R and we've got teammates with luxe, ego 06, ego 07, 08, 09, sl94, empire axe, geo, clone... I think that is all.
I know where we can get a bunch of different angels to borrow, and I know someone with a Geo 2.1, victory, NT, and DM9

NkdMangina on Pbnation, Doyle on Mcarterbrown, SCSUDoyle17 on YouTube, DoylesPaintball on eBay

I'd think there should be enough guns in MN that would be easily obtainable for the short amount of time it takes to do the test. If you talked to Air Assault I'm sure they'd loan you some markers off their used wall.

NkdMangina on Pbnation, Doyle on Mcarterbrown, SCSUDoyle17 on YouTube, DoylesPaintball on eBay

I'd think there should be enough guns in MN that would be easily obtainable for the short amount of time it takes to do the test. If you talked to Air Assault I'm sure they'd loan you some markers off their used wall.

Lol just hit up Cnoddings he has plenty

yea I kept seeing banner ads for asianbeaver.com until I cleared my cache

I'd think there should be enough guns in MN that would be easily obtainable for the short amount of time it takes to do the test. If you talked to Air Assault I'm sure they'd loan you some markers off their used wall.

Lol just hit up Cnoddings he has plenty

Ya, he is not the only one actually. I can think of a few players who have one of each of the high end markers.

But since we're on the topic of him, I think he currently has a Ripper Victory, Planet Eclipse CSL, G6R, Luxe 1.5, and Geo 2.1 That is 5 of the most expensive guns on the market right there.

Question for Gordon & Bryce: How long does the testing take? Would it be realistic for people to be able to meet up with either of you on a weeknight to do the testing? or are you looking for guns to use for extended period of time.

Let me know what you're looking for and I'm sure I can help make things happen

NkdMangina on Pbnation, Doyle on Mcarterbrown, SCSUDoyle17 on YouTube, DoylesPaintball on eBay

the testing is quick and easy, few shots over the chrono to make sure its working right, replace them in the loader (to maintain weight) and then 5 or 6 with the equipment attached, its quite quick. yes i think im going to contact brent and have a gander at his wall-o-guns.

in terms of the "forward" kick - its real. and there is no way that the human response, no way the body can react that quickly.

and yoda - do you have some kind of filter in mind? i have been trying to to integrate twice and get position, but i am dealing with mad sensor drift. i need to figure out a way to effectively filter the data to get rid of that.

maybe im just a cocker freak, but i find the karni one the most interesting. notice how the second half of the cycle doesn't sync up very well, while the first half did ...

Edited by cockerpunk, 29 June 2011 - 10:34 PM.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

Will there by vertical and horizontal ( left/right ) numbers taken to, or are you only measuring forward/backward motion?Why no vertical measurement? I thought part of the idea of holding it was so you could get a complete measurement without restricting yourself to one dof... but you've limited it anyway by only measuring one direction.

Also, I'm curious... what would you say your angular error is in sensor alignment from marker to marker?

in terms of the "forward" kick - its real. and there is no way that the human response, no way the body can react that quickly.

The only thing a person has to react to is their own thought that they'll be firing a marker. As soon as they've made the decision to fire the marker, the body can begin to prepare/react to the shot. Until you've shown that doesn't have an effect by remote triggering, there's plenty of time for a reaction as the trigger is pulled. It is fishy that a couple integrals of the Ion and Protege 68/45 curves look like they might end up positive.

As for filtering your data, you might have a tough time with that because the frequency of the oscillations look like they're about the same as the sample rate of your hardware/software. The only reasonable suggestion I have is to average as many shots as you guys are willing to take. You could probably get rid of most of the electrical noise with a physical low pass filter between the sensor and adc, if you don't already have one in there.

Edit: Also remember, a full tank will weigh significantly more than an empty tank. Assuming the ideal gas law still holds pretty well at 4500 psi (questionable), you gain about 415 grams (.91 lbs) empty vs full for a 68ci tank at 60*f, assuming an average molecular mass of air of 28.97 g/mol.

In an effort to make a small scientific outreach, you can check me by going to www.wolframalpha.com and inputting the following:

Are you happy with the consistency of the orientation of the sensor relative to the axis of the gun/barrel? And how do you feel that the tape does the job of securing the sensor to the gun? When we looked at this a couple of years back we made a rig where the sensor bolted to a clamp, and the clamp bolted to the barrel. There was very little potential for damping to creep into the results.

I hereby declare that I work for Planet Eclipse LtdI live in England.I work in England.I am English.Eclipse Owners Club V2

Question for Gordon & Bryce: How long does the testing take? Would it be realistic for people to be able to meet up with either of you on a weeknight to do the testing? or are you looking for guns to use for extended period of time.

Let me know what you're looking for and I'm sure I can help make things happen

the test is really quick and quite portable. We were thinking that setting up a station in a chrono area at a field would be great. people could just walk up, we spend 30 seconds grabbing some data and we're done.

The reason I say that is I can't tell if the positive accelerations are simply the shooter compensating for felt recoil or if the reciprocation of the gun is actually forward.

It's far too consistent to be shooter action.

We stuck the sensor on my hand last time and micro-muscle movements were showing up.

Are you happy with the consistency of the orientation of the sensor relative to the axis of the gun/barrel? And how do you feel that the tape does the job of securing the sensor to the gun? When we looked at this a couple of years back we made a rig where the sensor bolted to a clamp, and the clamp bolted to the barrel. There was very little potential for damping to creep into the results.

yes, i am happy with the alighnment and consistency. we could next time we test do the same gun again and see if the same thing comes out to prove it.

we didn't want to add any weight, nuts, bolts, and fittings all add mass to the system. we want something as unentrusive as possible.

Will there by vertical and horizontal ( left/right ) numbers taken to, or are you only measuring forward/backward motion?

Why no vertical measurement? I thought part of the idea of holding it was so you could get a complete measurement without restricting yourself to one dof... but you've limited it anyway by only measuring one direction.

Also, I'm curious... what would you say your angular error is in sensor alignment from marker to marker?

in terms of the "forward" kick - its real. and there is no way that the human response, no way the body can react that quickly.

The only thing a person has to react to is their own thought that they'll be firing a marker. As soon as they've made the decision to fire the marker, the body can begin to prepare/react to the shot. Until you've shown that doesn't have an effect by remote triggering, there's plenty of time for a reaction as the trigger is pulled. It is fishy that a couple integrals of the Ion and Protege 68/45 curves look like they might end up positive.

As for filtering your data, you might have a tough time with that because the frequency of the oscillations look like they're about the same as the sample rate of your hardware/software. The only reasonable suggestion I have is to average as many shots as you guys are willing to take. You could probably get rid of most of the electrical noise with a physical low pass filter between the sensor and adc, if you don't already have one in there.

Edit: Also remember, a full tank will weigh significantly more than an empty tank. Assuming the ideal gas law still holds pretty well at 4500 psi (questionable), you gain about 415 grams (.91 lbs) empty vs full for a 68ci tank at 60*f, assuming an average molecular mass of air of 28.97 g/mol.

In an effort to make a small scientific outreach, you can check me by going to www.wolframalpha.com and inputting the following:

I don't know how you can conclusively say that it's not shooter action, golf swings are pretty consistent too.

our tank had about 3700 psi.

Really? That's the only thing you got from that entire post...

Why no vertical measurement? I thought part of the idea of holding it was so you could get a complete measurement without restricting yourself to one dof... but you've limited it anyway by only measuring one direction.

I don't know how you can conclusively say that it's not shooter action, golf swings are pretty consistent too.

Why no vertical measurement? I thought part of the idea of holding it was so you could get a complete measurement without restricting yourself to one dof... but you've limited it anyway by only measuring one direction.

we only have the equipment for one DOF, sorry, we don't get paid or supported, we have what we have.

im just tryign to think of how the forward kick can be part of the human response, but i think the "lightly held" data we also took should provide the answer your looking for. i bascially just held the gun in one hand (loosly), and shot it. and human response should be pretty minimal.

It's far too consistent to be shooter action.

I don't know how you can conclusively say that it's not shooter action, golf swings are pretty consistent too.

our tank had about 3700 psi.

Really? That's the only thing you got from that entire post...

Why no vertical measurement? I thought part of the idea of holding it was so you could get a complete measurement without restricting yourself to one dof... but you've limited it anyway by only measuring one direction.

i told you how much air was in the tank, and we wieghed the setups ... what more do you want?

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

I don't know how you can conclusively say that it's not shooter action, golf swings are pretty consistent too.

these peaks are within like 5 msec of each other. There's no way that a human flinch presing the gun forward would be that consistent.

I know we would be talking about some sort of trained, autonomic response - but human reaction time is considered good / normal in the 200 msec range. That's longer than this entire sample. Human muscles can contract at a maximum rate of about 55 msec.

I don't know how you can conclusively say that it's not shooter action, golf swings are pretty consistent too.

these peaks are within like 5 msec of each other. There's no way that a human flinch presing the gun forward would be that consistent.

I know we would be talking about some sort of trained, autonomic response - but human reaction time is considered good / normal in the 200 msec range. That's longer than this entire sample. Human muscles can contract at a maximum rate of about 55 msec.

we only have the equipment for one DOF, sorry, we don't get paid or supported, we have what we have.

im just tryign to think of how the forward kick can be part of the human response, but i think the "lightly held" data we also took should provide the answer your looking for. i bascially just held the gun in one hand (loosly), and shot it. and human response should be pretty minimal.

I'll be interested in seeing that. I realize that human reaction is ~200ms, but if a person applies a simple forward push that could easily take place over a few tens of ms during the firing cycle to compensate that could explain the net forward kick of the Ion. The human brain is aware of the decision to make an upcoming action long before that action is made. Think about it like adding a flat/smooth close to linear curve to your data. Nothing I know about Physics can explain why you guys are measuring a net forward displacement if you were measuring the marker alone. I suppose the only explanation I can come up with is a restoring force of the marker against cockerpunk's chest.

And christ, I feel like I'm pulling teeth here. I'm not asking you to buy more gear. Would it be so difficult to take the sensor you have and rotate it 90* for a few shots? I mean I know it won't be measuring the same shot simultaneously with the horizontal measurement, but as you've pointed out numerous times the action of the marker is pretty consistent.

I appreciate what you guys do and know you're doing it for free (to us), I just figured you'd want suggestions to make the most out of the equipment you've got. I thought that last one was pretty obvious, sorry I wasn't more clear about it.

i told you how much air was in the tank, and we wieghed the setups ... what more do you want?

I made two suggestions for dealing with noise, asked (along with Jack) how consistently you can align the sensor - to which your response was "it's good" , and I was curious if you could weigh an empty vs full tank for posterity's sake. Mass and its distribution are kind of important when considering forces and acceleration.

I'll be interested in seeing that. I realize that human reaction is ~200ms, but if a person applies a simple forward push that could easily take place over several hundred ms during the firing cycle to compensate that could explain the net forward kick of the Ion. Think about it like adding a flat/smooth close to linear curve to your data. Nothing I know about Physics can explain why you guys are measuring a net forward displacement if you were measuring the marker alone. I suppose the only explanation I can come up with is a restoring force of the marker against cockerpunk's chest.

And christ, I feel like I'm pulling teeth here. I'm not asking you to buy more gear. Would it be so difficult to take the sensor you have and rotate it 90* for a few shots? I mean I know it won't be measuring the same shot simultaneously with the horizontal measurement, but as you've pointed out numerous times the action of the marker is pretty consistent.

I appreciate what you guys do and know you're doing it for free (to us), I just figured you'd want suggestions to make the most out of the equipment you've got. I thought that last one was pretty obvious, sorry I wasn't more clear about it.

i told you how much air was in the tank, and we wieghed the setups ... what more do you want?

I made two suggestions for dealing with noise, asked (along with Jack) how consistently you can align the sensor - to which your response was "it's good" , and I was curious if you could weigh an empty vs full tank for posterity's sake. Mass and its distribution are kind of important when considering forces and acceleration.

I don't know where the forward force sum comes from either. On an unbalanced spoolie it's possible that the forward speed of the bolt is so much faster than the retun force that there is a total movement of the gun in that direction.

as to sensor orientation - hell yeah. We plan to stick that little bastard all over the gun in all kinds of orientations. As we often say - the first test is a test of the test. These are the results we can use to tune the test, see it's strengths and weakensses and get a better understanding of what we are capable of measuring.

As to orientation - I'm not quite as confident as Gordon. I'm thinking that we can do it better. I'm not sure what sort of scale change we will see. I think that a 0 degree, 22 degree, 45 degree setup would be interesting to compare. That'll help us understand better how much orientation matching matters.

I can certainly toss a tank on the scale and see empty v full. In this case we chose to weigh the entire rig instead of worrying about individual components too much. Obviously looking at the Protege with std rig v with just a 13/3k. That test proved that we do need to be quite careful with mass. My thought on it at this point is that we have to let the gun matter - even though it's the smallest individual mass. I think for the next test I would like to set a standard mass for tank, hopper and paint. We can toss them on the scale then adjust up and down with total paint count starting at a pod.

i think your assumption that is a net forward response is not correct. while the peak forces might be higher in the forward direction, they are very short and tall = not much area. the sustained backwards push while slower, probably has more area = net negative position. i am going to keep wrestling with the intigration in an attempt to dervive position from this data, but so far i ahve not been able to compute anything i trust.

yeah, i don't see a reason why we can't mount the sensor to pick up verticals. we were not even sure the human rig was repeatable in this test so we didn't even bother. i don't see a reason why we couldn't.

wieghing a tank is easy, we can do that.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

Any plans to do the testing in a non human rig? To see the difference, if any.

I would also be interested in seeing the test run with the marker off, to see if pulling the trigger produces any readings.

yeah, we'll do some sort of clamped test at some point.

And yes, we plan to do a non gased and turned off test. I figure we can use a bunch of various setups to figure out what parts of the cycle are what. for example, a sniper degassed would show us hammer and valve alone.

Any plans to do the testing in a non human rig? To see the difference, if any.

I would also be interested in seeing the test run with the marker off, to see if pulling the trigger produces any readings.

yeah, we'll do some sort of clamped test at some point.

And yes, we plan to do a non gased and turned off test. I figure we can use a bunch of various setups to figure out what parts of the cycle are what. for example, a sniper degassed would show us hammer and valve alone.

Very cool stuff. Wish I was better at the computer gadgetry.

captin pinky: see when hill was born his mom secretly had tom kaye as the pool boy and well..... special hugs..... and now we have super duper mags lol

I don't know where the forward force sum comes from either. On an unbalanced spoolie it's possible that the forward speed of the bolt is so much faster than the retun force that there is a total movement of the gun in that direction.

as to sensor orientation - hell yeah. We plan to stick that little bastard all over the gun in all kinds of orientations. As we often say - the first test is a test of the test. These are the results we can use to tune the test, see it's strengths and weakensses and get a better understanding of what we are capable of measuring.

As to orientation - I'm not quite as confident as Gordon. I'm thinking that we can do it better. I'm not sure what sort of scale change we will see. I think that a 0 degree, 22 degree, 45 degree setup would be interesting to compare. That'll help us understand better how much orientation matching matters.

I can certainly toss a tank on the scale and see empty v full. In this case we chose to weigh the entire rig instead of worrying about individual components too much. Obviously looking at the Protege with std rig v with just a 13/3k. That test proved that we do need to be quite careful with mass. My thought on it at this point is that we have to let the gun matter - even though it's the smallest individual mass. I think for the next test I would like to set a standard mass for tank, hopper and paint. We can toss them on the scale then adjust up and down with total paint count starting at a pod.

Thanks.

i think your assumption that is a net forward response is not correct. while the peak forces might be higher in the forward direction, they are very short and tall = not much area. the sustained backwards push while slower, probably has more area = net negative position. i am going to keep wrestling with the intigration in an attempt to dervive position from this data, but so far i ahve not been able to compute anything i trust.

yeah, i don't see a reason why we can't mount the sensor to pick up verticals. we were not even sure the human rig was repeatable in this test so we didn't even bother. i don't see a reason why we couldn't.

wieghing a tank is easy, we can do that.

...

I think you'll need to average your shots together to get rid of that noise. But that still looks like it'll be positive to me.

Are you happy with the consistency of the orientation of the sensor relative to the axis of the gun/barrel? And how do you feel that the tape does the job of securing the sensor to the gun? When we looked at this a couple of years back we made a rig where the sensor bolted to a clamp, and the clamp bolted to the barrel. There was very little potential for damping to creep into the results.

yes, i am happy with the alighnment and consistency. we could next time we test do the same gun again and see if the same thing comes out to prove it.

we didn't want to add any weight, nuts, bolts, and fittings all add mass to the system. we want something as unentrusive as possible.

I would like to see the same gun tested again at a different time, because my fear with using hands it that a persons grip my change from day to day and begin of testing to end, as there hand gets tired ect. I think that i would be cool to make some thing that secures the sensor the same way every time. I think that the gain in weight can be minimized depending on design but the gain in repeatability will out weigh the small additional weight. Besides the weight is not going to be the same for each shot anyways unless you are counting each paintball and not just having a pod of paint and "full tank" of air for each, if you are so worried about weight then do you count each paintball in the hopper and then add another each shot, and do you refill the tank up to the same pressure after each shot? The reason i am asking is because i dough you go to this extent to make sure the weight is the same, so what would a little bit more mass be. I may be wrong but first i dont think that a well made mount rig would change the data to much, This could be tested by comparing one test with tape and one with a more repeatable rig in terms of gun to gun. And besides if the additional weight added to the gun from an attachment rig would change all the data form every gun tested the same and could possible be nullified by seeing how much if any it changes the results by doing a bolt/clamp on mount compared to tape and go from there to decide what you want to do.

And i my be reading the wrong but it appears that you have take data in only the foward back ward direction would it be possible to get more data form the test. i.e. more accelerometers placed in other places to measure other directions. and on other parts of the gun to see just how much the placement of the accelerometer changes the data.

And on the note of borrowing guns i think that it will be important to know exactly what you are getting data form, because yes it is easy to tell what physical changes have been made but with so may guns you have a whole list of things that you can change in the board that could affect how much the guns kick like dwell ect. I sujest that you request that the guns broad be reset to factory setting for a data set so a fair comparison can be made between guns.

And video high speed or not or possibly audio would be cool. Because the data is awesome but it would be even cooler to have something to compare it to like. I know that it would be difficult to see like at what point in the data acquisition that the ball left the barrel etc.

Are you happy with the consistency of the orientation of the sensor relative to the axis of the gun/barrel? And how do you feel that the tape does the job of securing the sensor to the gun? When we looked at this a couple of years back we made a rig where the sensor bolted to a clamp, and the clamp bolted to the barrel. There was very little potential for damping to creep into the results.

yes, i am happy with the alighnment and consistency. we could next time we test do the same gun again and see if the same thing comes out to prove it.

we didn't want to add any weight, nuts, bolts, and fittings all add mass to the system. we want something as unentrusive as possible.

I would like to see the same gun tested again at a different time, because my fear with using hands it that a persons grip my change from day to day and begin of testing to end, as there hand gets tired ect. I think that i would be cool to make some thing that secures the sensor the same way every time. I think that the gain in weight can be minimized depending on design but the gain in repeatability will out weigh the small additional weight. Besides the weight is not going to be the same for each shot anyways unless you are counting each paintball and not just having a pod of paint and "full tank" of air for each, if you are so worried about weight then do you count each paintball in the hopper and then add another each shot, and do you refill the tank up to the same pressure after each shot? The reason i am asking is because i dough you go to this extent to make sure the weight is the same, so what would a little bit more mass be. I may be wrong but first i dont think that a well made mount rig would change the data to much, This could be tested by comparing one test with tape and one with a more repeatable rig in terms of gun to gun. And besides if the additional weight added to the gun from an attachment rig would change all the data form every gun tested the same and could possible be nullified by seeing how much if any it changes the results by doing a bolt/clamp on mount compared to tape and go from there to decide what you want to do.

And i my be reading the wrong but it appears that you have take data in only the foward back ward direction would it be possible to get more data form the test. i.e. more accelerometers placed in other places to measure other directions. and on other parts of the gun to see just how much the placement of the accelerometer changes the data.

And on the note of borrowing guns i think that it will be important to know exactly what you are getting data form, because yes it is easy to tell what physical changes have been made but with so may guns you have a whole list of things that you can change in the board that could affect how much the guns kick like dwell ect. I sujest that you request that the guns broad be reset to factory setting for a data set so a fair comparison can be made between guns.

take these one at a time -

sure, we can easily repeat these tests for hands consistency and for sensor mounting, but like the debate about hands consistency, im just not seeing that as as large a factor as everyone else is. so it might be couple of degrees off, thats less then 5% error - i'd be more then happy with a test rig with less then 5% error. you can't feel 5% less kick, so there isn't much point in measuring it. that being said, its an easy test to do, so i dont see a reason why we couldn't.

secondly, we only have one input, so we can only simultainously measure one dimention of kick.

third, we would have to varify of course that the gun is operating properly and under normal conditions of course. if we can, we can post the settings used (if we know them). but like any test, i'm not gonna take one sample as representative of every gun like that. im far more interested in the shape and profile then i am the values anyway (others might be different).

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

guess that changes things a bit. Makes sense though - the first major spike would be the rammer. It's up - meaning it's pushing the rig back. makes sense.

I would like to see the same gun tested again at a different time, because my fear with using hands it that a persons grip my change from day to day and begin of testing to end, as there hand gets tired ect.

the fact that there was incredibly minimal change shot to shot when holding the gun indicates that the hand holding system is very repeatable. As to whether there is an overall, low frequency shift in data from shooter reaction isn't clear.

Besides the weight is not going to be the same for each shot anyways unless you are counting each paintball and not just having a pod of paint and "full tank" of air for each, if you are so worried about weight then do you count each paintball in the hopper and then add another each shot, and do you refill the tank up to the same pressure after each shot?

we did add paintballs to bring the count back up after chrono and after every couple shots. The rigs with tank, hopper, paint and gun all weighed upwards of 8 pounds. Each ball shot weighs something near .007 pounds. Each shot off the tank uses up about 1/1500th of the air in the tank. So 5 shots would change the rig weight by about .4%. Assuming that mass has a liner relationship to recoil (which we'll examine) that's pretty much nothing. even 50 shots in is pretty minor.

And i my be reading the wrong but it appears that you have take data in only the foward back ward direction would it be possible to get more data form the test. i.e. more accelerometers placed in other places to measure other directions. and on other parts of the gun to see just how much the placement of the accelerometer changes the data.

That makes a lot more sense. The first spike would be the hammer and paintball being pushed forward (rig pushed back), downward spike is hitting the valve (pushing forward), second upward spike is the paintball actually accelerating (pushing the rig back), the small downward motion is the bolt being accelerated back (rig pushed forward) - is it attenuated by continued gas expansion behind the paintball? Then the final upward spike is the bolt hitting the boltstop (pushing rig back).

Looks like the human element is less than I thought it'd be. Looks nice guys, I'm looking forward to more results!

secondly, we only have one input, so we can only simultainously measure one dimention of kick.

So you could take a reading from a different spot/directional configuration just on at the same time? I think that this would be cool just to see other directions, and how much it changes if mounted different places. And how hard would the problem of only one input be so solve is that one input into the digital oscilloscope or collection software?

And by no means am i saying that you test rig is not accurate i would just like to see some numbers that tell me that. I agree with you that it will probably only have marginal error i would just like to see the same gun run at a different time to ensure that you can get the same data as the first test. I think form what you have described as the testing procedures to be this would be relatively painless and it would make me a believer as probably may others that it dose what you say it dose.

I'm interested to see what the affects of may things are. To name a few changes in dwell, and then i would like to see if the barrel has any thing to do with kick, like dose bore or length change it.

That makes a lot more sense. The first spike would be the hammer and paintball being pushed forward (rig pushed back), downward spike is hitting the valve (pushing forward), second upward spike is the paintball actually accelerating (pushing the rig back), the small downward motion is the bolt being accelerated back (rig pushed forward) - is it attenuated by continued gas expansion behind the paintball? Then the final upward spike is the bolt hitting the boltstop (pushing rig back).

Looks like the human element is less than I thought it'd be. Looks nice guys, I'm looking forward to more results!

yup, exactly the way I read it. One note - we know from previous testing that the Ion cycles exactly the same way with and without paint - so the bolt return cycle isn't effected in this case by the back pressure from the gun. Your statement is prob accurate on the other guns.

So you could take a reading from a different spot/directional configuration just on at the same time? I think that this would be cool just to see other directions, and how much it changes if mounted different places. And how hard would the problem of only one input be so solve is that one input into the digital oscilloscope or collection software?

correct - we have a single input o-scope. The sensors are cheap the multi input o-scope is really expensive. With this rig we will just take various measurements at various locations at various angles and lay them on top of each other.

If you guys dont like the way they're doing the tests, nothing is stopping you from doing them yourselves. They aren't being paid to do these tests

While yes a multi directional setup would be idle, clearly budget restricts that. What they can do however is test the forward/backwards as previously done, then perhaps check barrel rise by doing a seperate test.

I'd like to see if the graph changes at all during rapid fire.

Keep up the good work, very exciting stuff here

the multi input o-scope is really expensive.

How expensive? Perhaps another episode of DrunkWorks is in order

you are failing to discount that i am indeed, the batman. just sayin'

Does that make Bryce Robin?

NkdMangina on Pbnation, Doyle on Mcarterbrown, SCSUDoyle17 on YouTube, DoylesPaintball on eBay

And on the note of borrowing guns i think that it will be important to know exactly what you are getting data form, because yes it is easy to tell what physical changes have been made but with so may guns you have a whole list of things that you can change in the board that could affect how much the guns kick like dwell ect. I sujest that you request that the guns broad be reset to factory setting for a data set so a fair comparison can be made between guns.

Two indentical guns with the same settings wont shoot exactly the same. While it would be beneficial to list pressures, and settings for comparison between two of the SAME gun, the differences in settings for comparison to a different type of gun are minor. There is a lot of fine tuning that could be done using these sensors.

A good example where you will see differences is in a gun such as an Ego where the regs aren't set properly... the higher the LPR setting the more force that will be placed on the bolt.

Seems like they will be testing a lot of different guns for quite awhile

NkdMangina on Pbnation, Doyle on Mcarterbrown, SCSUDoyle17 on YouTube, DoylesPaintball on eBay

yup, exactly the way I read it. One note - we know from previous testing that the Ion cycles exactly the same way with and without paint - so the bolt return cycle isn't effected in this case by the back pressure from the gun. Your statement is prob accurate on the other guns.

Well that's curious.

correct - we have a single input o-scope. The sensors are cheap the multi input o-scope is really expensive. With this rig we will just take various measurements at various locations at various angles and lay them on top of each other.

You could cheat and use a DAQ instead of an o-scope. I've used this guy before:http://sine.ni.com/n...g/en/nid/201986and there are even cheaper knockoffs that come with software available on ebay. What software are you using now?

If you guys dont like the way they're doing the tests, nothing is stopping you from doing them yourselves. They aren't being paid to do these tests

While yes a multi directional setup would be idle, clearly budget restricts that. What they can do however is test the forward/backwards as previously done, then perhaps check barrel rise by doing a seperate test.

I'd like to see if the graph changes at all during rapid fire.

Keep up the good work, very exciting stuff here

the multi input o-scope is really expensive.

How expensive? Perhaps another episode of DrunkWorks is in order

The prices range depending on specs but some can run 1000+ but depending on exact needs one may be found in the hundreds hundred. Im not sure of the specs of the one they are using now but it really completly depends on what you want/need them to do.

Sorry Gordon, I don't have any thoughts for filtering after the data has been collected. I have run into similar issues with data collected at work from pressure transducers and flow meters, and it has always gone back to changing settings regarding how and what data is actually captured. Lots of that type of software will have some sort of filtering options built in, but it may not be a part of whatever package you are using. If you run into issues handling that much data, I have had much better luck analyzing it with Open Office than with Excel - it seems to behave much better with large data sets than Excel does.

But what I meant was when you generate the graphs, do not let it automatically determine your axis range. Force all graphs to generate with a time axis of 0 to 450ms (or whatever number ends up capturing all data of interest) and an acceleration axis of -n to n (again, whatever value captures the necessary data for all tests).

If you're interested, I can whip up a barrel bracket that will let you rigidly mount it repeatedly at the same point in every gun. A cocker barrel to cocker barrel adapter if you will, with a swiveling center section (to orient the axes with each gun) having a little extra meat on it that you can mount the board to and lock in place with a set screw.

What bore size do you want for the adapter? I can make it large enough diameter to take a cut down freak insert, but I don't think I have any boring tools long enough to make it take a full length insert. Have dimensions you can toss at me from an ifit kit or similar?

And a part number for the accelerometer so I can make sure I put enough room on there for it.

im never a fan of giving up data (ie filtering before recording), there is no reason you can't capture everything and filter it later if you know how to building a filter (me and lurker were talking about a differentiation filter). the problem then i picking your corner frequency on your filter (basically slope). idk, i'll try things out next week when i have some time.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.